Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday January 28, 2011 @12:58PM
from the way-too-many-and-yet-way-too-few dept.

coondoggie writes "The White House has outlined a wide-ranging plan for putting one million of what it calls 'advanced technology vehicles' on the road by 2015. Most observers would say that is a good start, but is it reasonably doable? The next White House budget will include a number of investments and enticements to make the goal achievable in theory. Of course, not all of the provisions are likely to make the cut."

Most observers would say that is a good start, but is it reasonably doable?

First of all I realize you just copy/pasted the first paragraph from the article but "most observers" sounds a bit like weasel words and I didn't see where in the article anyone was calling this a "good start" nor can I think of anyone who would say that. This (like a lot of them) is a pretty polarizing issue and I'd bet "most people" are going to end up claiming it to be a waste of taxpayer money or too little too late. Not a whole lot of moderation out there these days in political views.

Secondly, sure it is achievable and you don't even have to raise taxes. Shift some of the oil subsidies [nytimes.com] toward this initiative. If you're afraid of losing jobs in the oil industry, include stipulations of domestic job creation and opportunities on these investments. I think Obama already promised to shrink oil subsidies down so that over the next decade $20 billion is saved by the taxpayer -- why not use that for this? Whether or not it's going to actually achieve a desired effect, now that's the real debate. Not whether or not it's 'doable.'

Trouble is...even shifting money around is not what we need to be doing right now. We need to CUT spending...and drastically!! Cut things and use that to pay down the debt.

I just heard on the news in the break room, that while the US still just barely has the top credit rating...they tell us that if we don't get the deficit under control pronto, they're gonna drop our credit rating.

I just heard on the news in the break room, that while the US still just barely has the top credit rating...they tell us that if we don't get the deficit under control pronto, they're gonna drop our credit rating.

Man, you think things are bad now...wait till THAT shoe drops.

I'm no economist but my take on things is: good. If that happens, the sooner the better because 1) we're not going to ever stop spending until it happens and 2) the longer we keep spending, the more exacerbated it's going to be when that "shoe drops." So do it now and get it over with, it's time for us to swallow our own medicine/reap what we've sewn/<bad metaphor here>.

I do get a kick out of these "oooh boy, you just wait" style omens when it comes to the economy. A long time ago my uncle set me straight about how China is artificially keeping the yuan low compared to the dollar so they can sell us cheap crap and undercut any American company. He was all "long run this" and "crisis that." He promised me one day Wal-Mart was going to find itself on top of this massive infrastructure across the country with no cheap Chinese goods to fill its shelves with because the USA and other nations had wised up and stopped this market manipulation. That was... four or five years ago? I spoke with him again over Christmas and he had exactly the same warning for me. Well, when does it hit?

The fact is, countries should not be investing in our money market. We're no "habitual defaulter" like Greece but we're being very stupid with our money and we should pay for that. You might be surprised to hear an American say this but: stop investing in us. Don't reward stupidity. Don't let us keep our perceived worth artificially high via bogus credit ratings. It's just as dangerous as China's artificially low yuan.

Our deficit is the greatest shame in my eyes and the blackest mark on my generation. Starting with Reagan, continuing through every president and transcending political lines, it has gotten completely out of control. Social Security is a ticking time bomb. Our patchwork on the financial and housing crisis is also a ticking time bomb. We're on borrowed time here and I have the gut feeling we would be better off paying sooner rather than later.

"Can only cut so much"? In 2005, the US federal government spent $2.47 trillion. Today the figure is $3.72 trillion. The fed.gov. hasn't even tried to cut since Clinton left office. Bush II had a bad enough fiscal record but Obama's making him look like a piker.

That's right because perpetually increasing the spending and raising money through only ways government can, i.e. taxes, debt and inflation (all taxes by another name) is the way to grow the economy. Debt per taxpayer was $55K in 2000, it is $127K not and projected to be $184K in 5 years at current rates. But who cares, it is only our children who will be paying it.

defense spending that now accounts for more of the budget than everything else combined.

You know, no matter how often you repeat a lie, it doesn't actually become true. $680 billions is NOT more than half of $3.5 trillion. Even if you include non-military defense spending, the number doesn't reach half, and most of the increase is due to interest on past debts. So since you can't exactly "cut" debt-payments, you're talking about slashing a budget which takes up about a quarter of the federal budget, and includes not only the military but also neat programs like NASA, various energy infrastructure requirements, and law-enforcement counter-terrorism operations.

But, of course, if you're a sandal-wearing perma-fried hippie, it's much easier to just yell "MORE THAN HALF!" and ignore the actual numbers. It's kinda hard to get the anti-war crowd frothing at the mouth when you just stick to the facts.

"Cutting government spending basically means punching the economy in the nose."

Government does not create jobs nor grow the economy in any meaningful and lasting way.

Not in the long term particularly, but it absolutely does in the short term. Cutting government funding cuts jobs because it is employing people and that's all there is to it. Cutting jobs leads to less people with real income which leads to less spending. In the long term it might even out, but we don't have that luxury as we're starting to come out of a depression.

The only thing the government can do is impede job creation and economic growth, or get out of the way so the private sector can.

I wonder if your realize what you wrote. Only the government can impede job creation or let the private sector impede job creation?

The government absolutely can help job creation and often does.

Keynesian economics has been proven not to work. Even JFK understood this.

Modern descendants of Keynesian economics make up the most popular macroeconomic theories taught today. Oh, and citing JFK as your authority on the economy isn't exactly convincing.

It's not entirely clear how the government is fundamentally different from a private company when it comes to the essence of the Keynesian model.

You have an institution that wants something done - say, build a bridge - and pays someone else to do it. The construction of this bridge employs engineers, architects, construction workers, foundry workers, and so on all the way down to the guy with the catering van that sells lunch and coffee at the job site. At the end of the project, you get a bridge.

Please explain how you can tell, from an external point of view, whether the institution described above is a government office or a private business, or even a private individual.

You can argue that it didn't really "create jobs" because all those workers are out of work when the project is done, but that's the way the construction industry works anyway. Creating a job is not the same as creating a lifelong career position. What does it even mean to "create jobs in a meaningful and lasting way?"

You don't get that intrinsic value with tax cuts or simply sending everyone a check.=Smidge=

$200K a year is NOT wealthy. In some cities...you can't get a dump of an apt on that salary (NYC for instance...SF another).

Median family income is $81136 in San Francisco and $48631 in New York City proper. You're telling me people making more than three times the median income of a household can't afford a crappy apartment? So by your estimation 75% or so of each city is homeless?

Maybe you don't feel wealthy but if you're making more than $200K, yeah you can afford more taxes than most everyone else.

If you're talking about hitting everyone..well, then lets hit EVERYONE. Lets throw some federal tax on those 49% or so that currently pay no taxes. I'm not talking milk them dry, but they should pay something...

You're an idiot. No really, you're an idiot. The bottom 50% of our society has NO net wealth. Their debt and assets balance out.

"If fuel taxes were raised, it would greatly encourage people to drive less and it provides economic subsidy for other forms of transportation instead of cheap oil. But that would make us exactly like Europe and our states would be declaring bankruptcy."

Trouble is...raise those fuel taxes..and virtually everything we have would go up on price on a huge scale. I'm talking basic necessities like FOOD, clothing and housing. How do you think all that stuff gets transported around. People bitch about taxation hitting the poor, well this one alone would target them more than any other tax raise.

And they way the infrastructure is in the US as it exists today...in most of the cities in the US, you can NOT function properly without a car. You need to drive for basic needs...to get to/from work. To shop for food and anything else you and/or your family needs. There is no such thing as public transport for the most part that the whole populace can easily use. How the fuck am I going to get my weekly groceries home? I'm single and I usually buy for the week and have to make multiple trips from the car to inside my house to get all the food and stuff in. I mean, a couple weeks ago, a whole 22lb ham was on sale for $0.99/lb...I sure don't see myself schlepping that on a bus that doesn't go from door to door...especially on a rainy day?

And please, don't start spouting that shit about moving closer to work...etc. That would take decades and the upheaval would be unbearable for the country and the economy. Not to mention..many places you were are NOT places you want to live (schools, crime, etc) even if there were enough proper housing for people. Oh...you're supposed to fucking MOVE every time you change jobs? I mean, this is common...the one job for life is a thing of the past, to move up in position and salary, you have to change jobs every few years (2-4). Sell your house and move every time? What if you're married and you spouse keeps her job but you change yours...she has to move too and quit her job and try to find a new one closer to the new home?

People like to think that raising fuel taxes would solve SO much...but the repercussions are far reaching.

Nationalized healthcare? Well, that's a whole new rant, but I'll leave it at this. The other day, I had to go to the DMV to get my license renewed. New address, so not available to do online. Seriously, if I had to deal with my healthcare with a govt. run option that runs as...*ahem* efficiently as the DMV, well, we'd see more dead people all over the place.

"Sorry sir...yes I can see you are hemorrhaging blood, but you don't seem to have the proper forms...and they aren't notarized either. "

It is funny how so many people are oblivious to what happens to 'Company Towns' when the company decides to shut down, as well as all of the horrible things that they bring to a community when they are still running. The suggestion that people should just live next to their work is advocacy for employment monopolies. It is bad enough when your TV is controlled by a monopoly, it is disastrous when your employment is.

That stuff would eventually be transported by rail, the only reason it is not is because of the huge subsidies trucking gets via free roads. Prices would go up, but externalities goes down. Nationalized healthcare works fine in nations I have lived in that used it. If anything there were less forms and mess since you could be treated before they determined what insurance carrier you had and what they would cover. Your entire post reads like misinformed drivel that you get spoon fed to you by Network News.

Yep, shifting the money would produce probably over 10 million electrics by then. However, unless there's a groundswell of demand from the bottom, I wouldn't expect the government to jeopardize its cozy relationships with the industry.

And I'm sure that when gas hits $3.50 or $4 per gallon the GOP will do a pretty good job of convincing people that "Not subsidizing X" is exactly the same as "raising taxes on X".

I'd be almost orgasmic if we started working on nuclear technology. Breeder reactors so the high level waste can be reprocessed. Reactors coupled with tasks that require a ton of energy, so we can desalinate water in the oceans and pipe it hundreds of miles inland for more arable land on the cheap. Reactors on ships coupled with thermal depolymerization systems that can suck out the waste in the Pacific Gyre, and turn it into crude oil. Heck, with thorium reactors or ones which can run on lesser grade f

Ive seen the way people drive when they are constrained by gravity. I would hate to see the way people drive when they could drive anywhere they chose. Cars over your house, cars in the woods, cars over lakes. Nuhh huh, you can keep your flying cars.

Why is it when talk of flying cars comes up, people always assume that the idiots on the ground would instantly qualify to become idiots in the air? There is an existing system of air traffic rules and regulations. Even if they became much more accessible, only a fraction of the people who currently drive would qualify to operate a flying car. Which basically means, by in large, the people who safely operate vehicles today would be the ones safely operating flying cars tomorrow. And as a benefit, traffic on

Provide me w/ a chance to fold the solar cell garage into a home improvement loan and it becomes a lot more affordable, and having the solar cells eases the strain which charging so many electric vehicles would add to the electric grid.

You can have the car charge during off peak hours. i.e. at night. This would add little strain to the infrastructure. Electricity also tends to be cheaper then. [Once again, off peak hours]. You just need to make it easy for the consumer so the plug it in when they come home put it does not start charging until 2 a.m.

I think that Siemens even research using car batteries as a distributive back up power source. Now that would require some upgrades to our gird.

Except that many parts of the grid heat up during peak hours, and the engineers who designed it did so with a dependency on low power consumption at night, which would allow them to cool down. If you have a bunch of cars in an area charging at night, there won't be enough time for the transformers (etc.) to cool off before companies open shop in the morning and start heating those components up even more. Then one day, BOOM!

It's not just peak performance of the grid that matters, it's the minimum, peak, mean, and average.

That will get demand to outstrip capacity, and automakers will adjust production to compensate. Leave diesel off the tax for now so the trucking industry won't be destroyed in the process. Presto, lots of new electric cars on the roads. If that doesn't happen, the highway trust fund will be flush enough with cash to take care of just about any road infrastructure need.

If we're serious about Middle East dependencies and carbon footprint, then we need to act serious.

That's fine. Current diesel cars are cleaner than petrol cars. They also get about 25 to 50% more MPG, meaning they are cheaper to own. Also, the diesel engine is simpler and therefore inherently more reliable than the petrol engine.

Maybe not $5 per gallon but I agree with your point. Way too many huge SUV's / large trucks in my area. Nowadays people get them as a defensive measure because "everyone else" has a huge vehicle. It's trending larger and larger every year; I'm not going to be surprised when dump trucks become the norm... unless you make it prohibitively expensive to do that.

Right now it's "in season" here and the parking lot is full of huge SUV's from out-of-state... and most of those people are single or retired so it's n

Citation? If you bother looking into it, you'll see that SUV and light truck sales are way off from years past.

There's got to be a way to make it not affect those in need while giving a disincentive to those who want to drive tanks.

Yes, it's called "tax loopholes," and it requires a huge new IRS bureaucracy, puts a giant paperwork burden on the very people (usually, small businesses like landscapers, dog groomers, carpenters) that you want to "protect," an

I find my (small) truck to be extremely useful. I find cause to move stuff at least once a month. I was originally planning on getting a Hi-Jet mini-truck, but its not allowed to be imported with the full 4-5 gears and can not be licensed in some states and in others it isn't allowed on the highway. Settled for the smallest Dakota instead.

My dad said we should add 10c per gallon to the gas tax every year, in 1991 after the first Gulf War. If we had done that we would have gas prices comparable to Europe and thus have the more efficient vehicle fleet they have. Putting a huge tax on gas will get you voted out of office in the next election, put a slow but steady tax in and it will just change buying habits over time.

That is bull cockey.. Those "safety" features are useless. Stop thinking that Italy, UK, Spain and Germany are a backwater 3rd world where they build card to kill people. They are as safe as the junk that GM and Ford makes.

Let me guess, you also believe that Canadian drugs are "UNSAFE" as well... the raging lie the US govt and the drug companies claim.

Trouble is...when exactly did taxes evolve to become a method for the government to influence citizen behavior??

Rather than keep progressing down this road, lets take away all incentive via tax.

Taxes should be for nothing more than funding the common govt functionality, and most of it should reside a the state level, since the state is closer to its citizens and can more efficiently fill their needs in a more targeted way.

But lets take ALL tax breaks away that try to iinfluence behavior. Stop child credits. Stop house deductions...get rid of all deductiions really...lets get to more a a fair or flat type (type, I'm game for some mods, not the strict definition) of tax where everyone just pays their fair share. We'd have more tax income coming in, and everyone would likely end up paying less in total taxes.

Lets to to where we use taxation ONLY to fund the govt, and lets get the govt out of the business of trying to tell me how to live and run my life!

Excellent post. We should tax the living hell out of giant SUVs and trucks (in addition to upping gas prices and tax penalties for vehicles with low fuel economy). They added tax for "luxury" vehicles in the 90s...why not broaden the definition and tax the crap out of unweildy SUVs and trucks (with exemptions for people who use them primarily for work).

Getting a larger vehicle out of safety concerns is stupid and short-sighted. It's hard to be safe in a vehicle that does not drive safely. People with this

Or we could not do that and keep our economy going. My view is that there's a very good chance that oil prices will go up in the not so distant future. That will be the time to switch from oil-based fuel to one of the alternatives we have already cultivated. I see no reason to rush things.

Upping gasoline prices to stimulate the purchase of new vehicles sounds like something that the marketing droids at Ford or GM would come up with. Here is where that logic falls flat: it incorrectly assumes that motivation to purchase a new car is the ONLY thing stopping people from buying them. For the vast majority of Americans, this is not the case. I personally - and virtually all of my friends and relatives - are not in a position to purchase a new car. In addition to not having enough credit to justif

Leave diesel off the tax for now so the trucking industry won't be destroyed in the process.

Here's the thing - if we're serious about cutting carbon emissions and oil dependency, a lot of the trucking industry needs to be on the long-term chopping block. If you want to transport goods in a way that minimizes the use of fuel, you'd do something like:1. Put everything in standard shipping containers so you can easily shift it between different transport methods.2. If it's coming from a foreign country or island territory, ship it to a convenient port.3. Take it from the port via rail to the rail yard nearest its destination, unless its destination is near enough to the port that that's closer than any rail yard.4. Truck it from the rail yard or port to its destination.

There's absolutely no good reason for trucks to have to transport things long distances. The reason it's common now has a lot to do with the highway system externalizing the cost of building and maintaining long-distance trucking's transport network. To fix that, you'd need to go for higher diesel taxes.

So how are they going to do it when the current "legal" electric cars cost so much that only the rich can afford them (Yes $40,000 = rich mans car)??

Are they going to subsidize them so that $20,000 credit goes to everyone that buys one? so that means we all pay for them while we make rich fat cats richer on the public teat?

Are they going to force manufacturers to sell them for reasonable prices?

OR will they repeal a lot of the STUPID automotive safety regulations that are in place to keep foreign cars out of the USA market and increase the prices of the ones that are here by adding a ton of un-necessary crap?

How the hell is the white house going to accomplish this without making significant changes to current automotive and import laws?

A SUPER example of the useless automotive safety laws is how it took a decade to get the SMART FourTwo imported into the USA. by "US" standard it was unsafe. yet it proved it's safety in 30 countries including Canada for a long time. A large number of very safe cars sold in europe are not sold here because of ridiculous laws regarding "Safety".

Their goal is to get 1 million cars on the road. In a country with 300 million people, that is one third of one percent. Granted, a large percentage of the population consists of children, non-drivers, or people who, five years from now will still be driving the car they own today, but getting one third of one percent of the population to buy an expensive vehicle is not that unreasonable. The question is, will Obama actually try to make it happen?

Big Oil has discouraged disruptive innovation for decades now. Electric Cars face the Linux problem of barriers to mindshare until.gov decides to ditch the favorable deals Big Oil worked out in the 70's and 80's.

Oh for Pete's sake. Electric cars face the same problem every other consumer product does: presenting the consumer with enough perceived value so that the consumer willingly trades a certain amount of cash for it.

I mean, you do realize that research on electric cars is taking place ALL OVER THE WORLD, right?

You obviously weren't watching the State Of The Union address, in which Obama clearly and plainly stated that the government is the engine of the economy. He's done us the kind favor of finally just coming right out and saying it, in public. Obviously, he has a lot of supporters that want it to be that way. But many people, if they stop to really think about what that means, will understand what an idealogical train wreck he represents.

They have to foist impossible numbers yet again via bogus public relation stunts like this legislation? Does anyone remember the past 38+ years since the oil/gas shortages of OPEC when they had less than 30% importation to the US of our daily use, and now we are 56% foreign oil dependent? Americans must suffer ADHD at a low and high level, personal and governmental. The current administration is saying what? That they are going to fund research for alternative fuel systems/consumption models and product

I drive a hybrid car now, and in the LOVELY Minnesota winter, the batteries just DIE. I'm not kidding, they've had to be replaced. Even when they work my mileage almost halves in the winter. This makes me a it worried about an all-electric vehicle. A surprise "Hey your vehicle's range just dropped form 100 miles to 50 miles with no notice!!!!" is NOT a good thing.

Second, I want to be able to plug the thing into a regular ol' outlet.

I drive a hybrid car now, and in the LOVELY Minnesota winter, the batteries just DIE. I'm not kidding, they've had to be replaced.

Out of curiousity - what type of hybrid do you drive exactly? While the batteries used in current hybrids (NiMH) are definitely lacking in extreme cold temps like you get, they shouldn't fail because of it if the battery management system system is doing it's job. I've never heard of a Toyota hybrid's battery dying because of the cold...

Honda Civic hybrid. I'm having a lot of hybrid-oriented issues with the thing which make me REALLY happy I leased the thing rather than buy it. Honestly I just wanted a buffer until better tech comes around, during which they have to fix everything that breaks.

What I'm worried about is the batteries in my car can go a little schizo on you. They'll show full and then two seconds later they say they're at 20%. My assumption is that this is a crappy Honda thing

Yes, it's a known issue with the Civic hybrid. Supposedly there is a reflash to help keep the car from causing the batteries to lose capacity too quickly, but many suspect that either by the time it's done the damage has already been done, or that it sacrifices fuel economy in normal operation - despite Honda's claims that it doesn't.

I know mileage drops in the winter. But going form ~45MPG to ~25 or even less? That's quite a difference.

It depends on the length of your trips (the shorter they are, the worse it is) and the temperature, but it's not unheard of. Even on other hybrids on the Prius. The latest T

Companies need to make a compelling (yet affordable) electric car for me. That probably means the government needs to provide subsidies/incentives of some sort, because until there are buyers, there won't be models available, but until there are models available, there won't be buyers.

The Leaf could be the best car in the world, but it's fuuuuuugly and too small. The Volt is nice looking, yet is priced like a BMW 3 series, but probably assembled like, well, a GM product.

Hello, Honda, Toyota, Ford.......are you listening? Build me a 4 door hatchback (like a Mazda 3, or Ford Focus) electric vehicle with a decent power and range for under $30k and I'll sign the purchase agreement right now.

I want an electric car. I don't want a Leaf or a Volt (for the reasons above). I'll buy one once there are more compelling models to chose from.

Really. Roads are paid for by taxed gas. The more gas you use, the more you pay for road improvements. It would be logical if you had metered power for charing cars that was taxed for road repairs. However I hold the much lower view of what they will want to do is to place GPS units on the cars so they can tax them by actual mileage. This then opens the door for insurance companys to track you, to be billed and ticked for speeding and general government oversite into your life. Such as "that is 4 trips to McDoanlds this week, keep it up and we will charge more for health care." Then with the foot in the door, they will go after adding GPS to regular cars and trucks.

Beyond that the "greeness" of the cars are up for debate. Considering what it takes to make a battery, what to do with them when they go bad, and how much of a toxic trouble they are in an accident. Then we can talk cost. An electric car starts at $40,000 and will need $5,000 or more in new batteries every 5 or 6 years. Add in the fact that the "power" the car uses comes from a power plant that burns coal or crude. All you have done is moved where the carbon footprint takes place at.

I find it hard to get excited by something that seems to cost more, lowers my standard of living, is no better for the environment, and takes away freedoms that I currently enjoy. All in the name of trying to NOT change the temperature of the plant when there the one thing we know is the temperature is going to go up and down like a yo-yo over time no matter what.

Lithium cells are non-toxic and can be recycled. The batteries last a lot longer than you are talking about. Also coal plants are cleaner than the average ICE car and no one burns crude for electricity. Please educate yourself on this topic before shooting off at the mouth.

50 years of political "investing" have left us with a record deficit added on, every year, to our already staggering debt.

Isn't an "investment" supposed to, you know, pay off?

More seriously, this is the problem with government "investing," as economists have understood for centuries. Politicians are "investing" *other people's money.* They don't have the same incentive to pick and choose their investments as you do. And the government lacks the price-signaling information that the free market does. This is

Just pass a law for every family to buy an electric car. Like was done with health insurance in the Affordable Care Act. And think of the green jobs that will be created installing charging stations in every home. And all the replaced, polluting gasoline cars that will be off the road. Win-win!

2) Decrease the amount of pollution being polluted by drivers. -- Also, good.

I don't understand what we're doing with all these cars that people stop using. I know my GF gave up her Ford Explorer to get a Mazda in the Cash for Clunkers deal... but where did it go? Are the metals being recycled so that we can produce this new generation of eco-friendly vehicles in the most green way possible? Or maybe to cut costs?

Or is it crushed somewhere... rusting? Maybe it was shipped over-seas to be scrapped and its parts to be melted down and recycled under horrible working conditions.

I think that part... the origins of the resources for building these newer electric cars and the after-story of our throw-away cars is more important than getting more than getting X miles per Y tons of carbon per year.

...by converting government fleets to electric, which would be far more effective for driving the industry, show that the government is taking a leadership role, and be more intellectually honest besides. I suspect, though, that they meant for you and me to drive little 50 mile range electric things while the ruling class continues to drive gas-guzzlers.

What if I set up a couple of nice solar panels to charge my car? Or a wind turbine?

A large (stands on its own mast, 3m-4m rotor disc) "domestic" wind turbine produces around 5kW, when it's going well. So, after seven hours of strong winds, you'll have charged your battery to the equivalent of a gallon of fuel.

Now, the Peugeot ePartner MPV has a 27kWh battery that takes nine hours to charge off normal 240V single-phase mains and has a range of 60 miles. A diesel Peugeot Partner would do that kind of dista

Part of the problem here is the most electric utilities charge a lower rate for the first KW hours and a much higher rate for the last. The idea is to charge consumers for not conserving energy. As part of the program to promote electric cars the government should mandate that all power utilities would have to charge consumers the lowest rate for all KW hours used to charge electric cars, and that those KW hours do NOT count toward the consumers 'cap' before the higher rate kicks in. This might mean hav

But this is only a problem because gas is so cheap in the US. If gas was taxed properly to support infrastructure, public transportation and research on alternatives instead of subsidising it. Gas in Sweden is roughly twice as expensive compared to California.

The energy equivalence between gas and electricity (gal to kWh) is not very interesting although I know the EPA is trying to make such an equivalence to say what the MPG equivalent value for the Leaf is. The reason that it is pointless is that efficiencies at the production end and the consumption end are different between the two energy delivery systems. So why not use a metric that roughly tracks efficiency (not counting subsidies) - cost:

If the Nissan Leaf gets 3.4 miles per kWh (http://gas2.org/2010/11/22/epa-gives-nissan-leaf-99-mpg-rating/) then those 3.4 miles costs 10 cents or 34 miles/dollar (2.9 cents/mi) assuming your 10c/kWh number.

My 2005 Prius averages around 45 mpg and gas is around $3.40 where I live, so 45/3.40 = 13.2 miles/dollar (7.5 cents/mi).

So the Leaf is 2.5 times better than the Prius on cost per mile basis. Now the cost of the Leaf's batteries must be taken into account of course, but it is at least possible that future battery technologies and gas and electric costs will result in a trade where it is cheaper to run electric cars over their life than it is to run gas cars. I sure hope so - I hate gas cars for their noise and their pollution which is never as good integrated over their lifetime as an electric car.

Emissions reduction, and conversion of the fleet to non-petrol is the point. It isn't about saving you money in the short term. Since we have arguably passed peak oil, and since we will need that oil for plastics and medicine, it is _vital_ that we stop burning it for transportation.

My Prius, for example, is tuned for emissions. That means that the gas mileage is "very good" by default, but there are times when the total system could be better for mileage but instead of laboring the engine it revs the engin

Sorry, but the math is a bit off. Yes, that's the energy conversion, but keep in mind that the electric motor is about 3x as efficient as a gasoline engine, so the actual cost in terms of actually moving the car around is maybe a third of that.

You have to remember that an internal combustion engine is not very efficient at turning that 34kWh gas into forward motion. Numbers I have seen put them at about 15-25% efficient in the best case. An electric motors on the other hand in the 50-100hp range have efficiencies of ~85-90%.

So from a fuel vs electricity cost stand point EV's win hands down. It's the massive extra costs that keep EV's off of the road today. You can buy a lot of gas for the $10,000-15,000 extra that your paying for your small

Yes, but only a very small amount of the energy in gasoline is extracted by the engine. Internal combustion engines have a theoretical limit of about 35%, and in vehicles they tend to average somewhat lower than 20% (due to non-peak efficiency RPM most of the time, warmup, etc).

Meanwhile, the average old coal power plant is about 40% efficient, and about 8% of that is lost in getting it to you. Considering that large electric motors (such as those used in cars) are close to 99.99% efficient (!), you even ha

A gallon of gas is equivalent to ~34kWh of electricity. At the relatively cheap rate of 10 cents per kWh, that means $3.40 in electricity costs to replace a gallon of gas. Plugging in seems to have no price advantage over filling up, and has the extra problems of range and charge time.

The difference is in energy conversion efficiency. An internal combustion engine is about 25% efficient. Add in mechanical losses and gasoline refining/transport costs and you're at about 15% of the energy from the oil that comes out of the ground to drive the wheels of your car.

Electricity has about 40% efficiency from a coal plant (higher for nuclear and renewables), 95% transmission efficiency to a person's house, and about 80% for battery conversion and electric motor efficiency. So overall about 30% of the energy from the coal drives the wheels of your car. Roughly twice as efficient as an ICE. Also note that the price you pay per kWh already takes into account the losses from the first two steps. So on a $ per mile basis, electric is about 5x cheaper than an ICE, assuming $3.40/gal gas.

The same reason is why hydrogen generated from electrolysis is a dead end as a fuel. You're talking about 40% efficiency from coal plant to electricity, and (optimistically) 65% efficiency from electrolysis, then 70% for a hydrogen fuel cell, and 95% electric motor efficiency. Overall you're at 17% of the coal's energy driving your car's wheels, which is pretty much the same as existing ICE vehicles. Factor in the storage and transport problems along with lack of infrastructure, and hydrogen is worse than oil. It only becomes viable if we can get nuclear or renewables to generate most of our electricity, and realistically, only nuclear has a chance of that in the next 20+ years.

(DIsclaimer: All numbers are ballpark what I remember off the top of my head. They may not be exact.)

Everybody knows that the Republican Borrow and Spend technique is the only fiscally responsible choice. Paying down debt is un-American. Only a deadbeat pays principle. And how dare he tax rich people on parity with the poor! The poor exist to make the lives of the rich better! Damn him for creating more jobs in two years than Bush the Lesser created in four, maybe eight. And meeting 84% of his election promises in two years? That's a some sort of Kenyan Konspiracy!

"Ahh, the Kenyan Konspiracy. Obama is also a Kook! Therefore, Obama is head of the Kenyan Kook Konspiracy! Oh, my gosh! That has the same acronym as the KKK! PROOF that Obama went back in time to the South during Reconstruction and founded the KKK!" - Glenn Beck

You describe Cash for Clunkers as "wildly successful." First, you do understand that this was Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's characterization of the program, right? And that Ray LaHood is the political appointee with the single greatest interest in painting the program in a positive light?

Economists have a different understanding of Cash for Clunkers. It was "wildly successful" among the upper-middle-class types who actually used the program; and a raw deal for everyone else. Economists Amir Sufi (Cal Berkley) and Atif Mian (Chicago) studied the program extensively. They found that ultimately, the program simply accelerated the purchases of middle and upper class types who *would have soon purchased new vehicles anyway.*

The unintended side effect was taking hundreds of thousands of perfectly usable used vehicles off the market, decreasing supply and so increasing the price for people in the market for a used vehicle -- i.e., the poor. Used car prices went up an average of 10 percent.

And of course, the actual money used to subsidize the new vehicles didn't come from thin air: It was *taken from everyone else* -- i.e., other taxpayers.

Ultimately, it was Basqiat's Broken Window Fallacy writ large. *Destroying things* -- whether they be windows or old cars -- does not create wealth. All we did was destroy the value inherent in the used cars, then create the illusion of "wild success" by transferring some wealth from group A (public) to group B (program participants).

So the "wild success" thing is a tautology. Of COURSE it was successful -- among the people it benefited. That's like saying Jesse James' bank-robbery spree was "wildly successful." For Jesse, you bet. For the bank's customers, not so much.